1. IDEM Update Indiana Chapter American Water Works Association February 24, 2011 Thomas W. Easterly, P.E., BCEE, QEP Commissioner IN Department of Environmental Management 1

2. 2 IDEM’s Mission We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment IDEM’s mission is to implement federal and state regulations to protect human health and the environment while allowing the environmentally sound operations of industrial, agricultural, commercial and government activities vital to a prosperous economy.

3. How Does IDEM Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment? Develop regulations and issue permits to restrict discharges to the environment to safe levels. Inspect and monitor permitted facilities to ensure compliance with the permits. 3

4. How Does IDEM Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment? Use compliance assistance and/or enforcement when people exceed their permit levels or violate regulations. Educate people on their environmental responsibilities. 4

5. 5 Performance Metrics Dec 2010 Quality of Hoosiers' EnvironmentResultTargetComments % of Hoosiers in counties meeting air quality standards 99.99%100%80%Muncie Lead—675 people % of CSO Communities with approved programs to prevent the release of untreated sewage 95.4%100%20% 94+9 (103) out of 98+9 (108) % of Hoosiers receiving water from facilities in compliance with safe drinking water standards 99.3%99%95% Permitting Efficiency Total calendar days accumulated in issuing environmental permits, as determined by state statute Land 12,40266,56586,864 Air 21,789207,000385,000 Water 24,55848,000200,000 * Places emphasis on back logged permits Compliance Total percentage of compliance observations from regulated customers within acceptable compliance standards Inspections 96.45%97%75% Self reporting 96.60%99%95% Continuous monitoring (COM) 99.82%99.90%99% * Tracks observations and not just inspections

6. 6 Performance Metrics June 2005 Quality of Hoosiers' EnvironmentResultTargetComments % of Hoosiers in counties meeting air quality standards 61%100%80% 12 counties & 2,408,571 of 6,195,643 above standard % of CSO Communities with approved programs to prevent the release of untreated sewage 4%100%20%75% by 2007 is goal Permitting Efficiency Total calendar days accumulated in issuing environmental permits, as determined by state statute Land 100,01366,56586,864 Air 511,000207,000385,000 Water 301,00048,000200,000 * Places emphasis on back logged permits Compliance Total percentage of compliance observations from regulated customers within acceptable compliance standards Inspections 95.46%97%75% Self reporting 97.11%99%95% Continuous monitoring (COM) 99.19%99.90%98.95% * Tracks observations and not just inspections Organizational Transformation Budgetary agency dollars spent on key outside contracts for core agency functions. Dollars spent on outside services per year $6,179,367$0$3,447,017

7. Discussion Topics IDEM Staffing Levels. IDEM Legislative Agenda. Pharmaceuticals in Drinking Water. Chromium 6. Other Water Issues. Land Issues. 7

8. IDEM Staffing Levels YEAR2004200520062007200820092010CurrentTarget Actual FTE895918915927954950891866902 8

9. 2011 IDEM Legislative Agenda No fee increase proposals. IDEM Issuance of NPDES General Permits. – SB200 Passed the Senate on January 25, 2011. Permit Terms. Conflict of Interest of board members. SB565 Solid Waste Management Districts. – Define duties and funding for SWMDs. – Will be referred to the EQSC for further study. 9

10. 2011 IDEM Legislative Agenda SB 433 Environmental issues is the IDEM general bill that passed the senate last year (passed Senate this year). – Authorization to pursue delegation for U.S. ACE 404 and U.S. EPA UIC programs. – EQSC study of funding for environmental programs. – Solid Waste Landfill instead of Sanitary Landfill. – Replace “wastewater” with “septage.” – Many other fix-up issues (47 sections). 10

11. Other Environmental Bills HB 1187 Satellite manure storage passed House. HB 1451 Mint distilling operations—to EQSC. SB 202 Satellite manure storage, anaerobic digestion and gasification facilities, storm water exemption passed Senate. 11

12. Other Environmental Bills Over 1,800 bills have been introduced this year. There are at least 40 introduced bills which relate to environmental matters in some way. IDEM’s legislative liaison works with bill sponsors and members of the legislature to make them aware of the environmental impacts of proposed legislation. 12

13. PHARMACEUTICALS IN DRINKING WATER 13

14. Pharmaceuticals in Water Supply “This glass of water that you’ve given me—I’m sure has superb Bloomington water, has no measurable benzene in it right now. Ten years from now it will. Now that’s not because your water’s going to get bad. Its because we, as scientists, cannot measure the level of benzene that’s in there now. We will ten years from now because our analytical techniques will get better.” Dr. Bernard Goldstein 4/19/2006 14

15. Pharmaceuticals in Water Supply USA Today published an article in March 2008 identifying “pharmaceuticals” in 24 drinking water supplies. In Indiana, Indianapolis was identified as having “caffeine” in finished drinking water—no level was given. 15

16. Pharmaceuticals in Water Supply Illinois followed up on the USA Today article by testing drinking water supplies for 56 different contaminants in: – Chicago – Aurora – East St. Louis – Elgin – Rock Island 16

17. Pharmaceuticals in Water Supply Illinois found detectable levels of 16 substances in untreated water and 12 substances in finished drinking water. Illinois EPA used a safety factor of 10,000 and other adjustments to calculate a “safe level” for these compounds. 17

18. Pharmaceuticals in Water Supply The highest pollutant level in finished drinking water (for cotinine, a breakdown product of nicotine) was 1/333 rd of the calculated safe level. A person would need to drink 1,470 pounds (175 gallons) of water a day to reach the calculated safe intake level of cotinine. All other pollutants detected were much lower in relation to the “safe intake level.” 18

19. Pharmaceuticals in Water Supply The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) looked for 158 potential contaminants at 25 locations on and near the Ohio River, including at the discharges from sewage treatment plants. At least one of the 25 samples had detectable results for 71 of the 158 compounds. No unsafe levels have yet been identified. 19

20. Sampling Challenges What do you sample for? – As of April 2007, U.S. EPA had identified 31,000,000 organic and inorganic compounds. – About 14,000,000 of these compounds were commercially available at that time. – U.S. EPA has calculated that there are potentially 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 60 ) compounds in the environment. 20

21. Sampling Challenges What do you sample for? – About 245,000 (0.8%) of the commercially available compounds were being tracked or regulated by some entity. – One ounce of water contains about 520,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules. – We currently can detect compounds at the 1 ppt level so need 520,000,000,000 molecules of a compound in an ounce of water to detect that compound. 21

22. Sampling Challenges What can we afford to sample for? – The ORSANCO analytical cost for 158 compounds was $3,120 per sample (average of $20 per compound per sample). – If it was possible to analyze for all of the 245,000 compounds being tracked or regulated at $20 per compound, the cost would be about $5,000,000 ($5 million) per sample. 22

23. Science Challenges What is a safe level? – New drugs go through rigorous testing to determine both the therapeutic dose and the level below which there is no effect—both for humans and other living organisms such as fish and amphibians. – Most other compounds in commerce have not been through enough testing to determine a level that is safe for all organisms. 23

24. U.S. EPA’s Plan U.S. EPA recently recognized that it would take them 70 years to develop safe levels for the compounds currently in their backlog if they continued with their normal scientific process. U.S. EPA has developed a new four step process to significantly accelerate their process to ensure that drinking water is safe. 24

25. U.S. EPA’s Four Step Process 1.Rather than working on each compound one at a time, U.S. EPA plans to address water contaminants in groups. 2.U.S. EPA will engage private innovators, entrepreneurs and small business to improve drinking water treatment technology. 25

26. U.S. EPA’s Four Step Process 3. U.S. EPA will leverage all appropriate authorities—such as pesticide and chemical laws—to confront and preempt drinking water contaminants. 4. U.S. EPA will work closely with State and Local Partners on up-to-date information sharing, monitoring, analysis and other assistance. 26

27. IDEM’s Recommendations Continue with common sense programs to keep contaminants, such as unwanted medications, out of our waters (brochure). Follow the work of U.S. EPA and others in their efforts to determine which, if any, products have the potential to reach unsafe levels. Continue to participate with ORSANCO and other States to develop the science. 27

28. Chromium 6 In December, 2010, the Environmental Working Group released a report showing 31 of 35 sampled public water supplies exceeded the “CA public health goal of 0.06 ppb for this carcinogenic “Erin Brockovich Chemical.” The current 100 ppb MCL for total chromium was determined to be protective in 1991. 28

29. Chromium 6 In September, 2010, U.S. EPA released a Toxicological Review of Hexavalent Chromium including oral dose carcinogenic data. When this review is final, EPA will reevaluate the MCL for chromium. In the interim, EPA has released: “recommendations for enhanced monitoring for Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water.” 29

30. Chromium 6 The U.S. EPA guidance provides information “to show how a system could enhance chromium monitoring through additional sampling and analysis specifically for chromium-6.” The guidance notes that the best laboratories have a detection limit of 0.02 ppb with a reporting limit of 0.06 ppb (the EWG/CA goal). 30

31. Emerging DW Issues DW utilities on the Ohio River have recently reported two concerns: – The possibility of ammonia in raw water interfering with proper disinfection due to its chlorine demand. – Bromide in raw water contributing to THMs. ORSANCO has established a 1 mg/l ammonia standard measured at the drinking water intake, still studying bromide. 31

32. Indiana Water Issues Environmental Group Petition for Withdrawal of Approval of the NPDES Program. –Antidegradation. –General Permits. –Coal Mines. Algae issues and nutrient regulations. – Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, Ohio River, Indiana lakes, rivers and reservoirs. Pesticide General Permit. 32

33. Potential Regulatory Issues--Land RISC guidance Nonrule Policy Document and regulations implementing HB1162—includes protection of wellhead protection areas. Coal combustion waste regulations. 33

34. Thank You Tom Easterly Commissioner Indiana Department of Environmental Management 317-232-8611 teasterly@idem.in.gov 34